R v Ray

Case [2013] NSWSC 767 12 June 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ray [2013] NSWSC 767
Hearing dates: 12 June 2013
Decision date: 12 June 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 24 years with a non-parole period of 18 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - intent to cause grievous bodily harm - savage unarmed assault - significant history or violence - offence while on parole and apprehended domestic violence order - future dangerousness
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Jole Ki Ray
Representation: Counsel:
Ms H Wilson (Crown)
Dr R Webb (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Voros Lawyers

File Number(s): 2011/117034

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Jole Ki Ray, the offender, is to be sentenced for the murder of Ms Priscilla Perry at The Entrance on 9 April 2011. He was found guilty of this offence by a jury on 9 May 2013 after a trial at Newcastle.

The killing of Ms Perry was not something that the offender intended or planned. What he did intend was to inflict really serious bodily harm upon her in a savage assault with his fists and feet. This occurred when he exploded in rage as a result of a combination of relatively trivial matters at a time when Ms Perry was particularly vulnerable.

The offender is a violent man, particularly against women. He killed Ms Perry only two months after having been released on parole in respect of the brutal assault of another young woman.

The crime of murder is one that is punishable by imprisonment for life. The maximum penalty for an offence is reserved for those falling in the worst case category of their type. It has not been suggested by the Crown that a life sentence should be imposed in this case and that concession is realistic.

In determining the appropriate sentence it is necessary that the statutory guideposts of the maximum penalty and the prescribed standard non-parole period of 20 years be borne in mind, along with all other facts and circumstances pertaining to the offence and the offender.

Pricilla Perry

Before turning to the offence and the offender I want to say something about Ms Perry.

She was 37 years old. She completed Year 12 at high school and thereafter worked in the food and hospitality industries. She is described as having "worked very hard to become a very good pastry cook" and she was skilled at cake decoration. She had her own difficulties in life but remained a kind, caring and loving family member. In turn she was much loved and her passing has left a considerable void in the lives of many.

I wish to acknowledge the grief of Ms Perry's mother, step-father and brother who bravely made victim impact statements that were tendered at the sentencing hearing this morning and two of which were read. I again thank them for providing such valuable insights…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Ray

Details

AGLC: R v Ray [2013] NSWSC 767
Case: [2013] NSWSC 767
Decision Date: 12 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a sentencing hearing for Ray, who had been found guilty of murder. The deceased, who was known to Ray, was attacked in a vicious and unprovoked manner. The attack resulted in the deceased's death. Ray had a significant history of violence and was on parole at the time of the offence. Additionally, there was an apprehended domestic violence order in place against Ray, prohibiting him from approaching or communicating with the deceased. The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and Ray's criminal history.

The court considered the brutality of the attack, which was savage and unarmed, and the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court also took into account the significant history of violence exhibited by Ray, the fact that the offence was committed while he was on parole, and the breach of the apprehended domestic violence order. The court emphasised the importance of sentencing in cases of murder, which must reflect the gravity of the offence and serve the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society. The court further considered the risk of Ray being a danger to the community in the future.

In determining the sentence, the court recognised the extreme nature of the offence and Ray's significant history of violence. The court held that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court considered this sentence to be sufficient to achieve the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society while also taking into account Ray's history of violence and the risk of future dangerousness. The court further noted that the sentence also provided an opportunity for Ray to reflect on his actions and potentially rehabilitate during his time in prison.

The court made an order that Ray be detained in custody, subject to the provisions of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 1999, and that he be eligible for parole after serving 25 years. The court also noted that Ray's parole eligibility would be subject to the conditions of the apprehended domestic violence order, which would remain in place for the protection of the deceased's family and the community.

Orders